Agree with this statement? "The short sighted moves Gibbs made over and over again KILLED this team's future"

[HailGreen28]

Made a new thread, rather than hijack the McNabb thread.

(snip)....it's pretty clear that the short sighted moves Gibbs made over and over again KILLED this team's future.

This Gibbs 2 debate is a hijack and I apologize for joining in but I must say that Gibbs 2 was a failure because, if for no other reason, he did not change the culture or philosophy of the organization.

He retained Vinny, kept Danny involved and bought hook line and sinker into the philosophy of "loading up" to win now.

He failed to build a lasting organizational model that would serve this franchise after his departure. The fact that Vinny and Danny were large and in charge in January of 08 is direct result of Gibbs not changing a thing. So overall he was a failure.

But in retrospect it's not a surprise since he and Casserly were failures too between 1990 and 1992. Their drafts were awful and all they did is add stopgap free agents via plan B to support the aging Beathard built roster. The team crumbled in 1993 not simply because one man left, but because there were no adequate young replacement on the salary bloated roster.

What Gibbs 2 showed is that he still could lead men. That was, is and likely will always be his eternal strength.

He was no longer the innovator he was in the 80s and he never had the personnel chops.

The result was a sub .500 record but a couple of nice runs to sneak into the playoffs.

So he did better than Norv Turner, Steve Spurrier and Jim Zorn. Really? This is what passes for success now?

[Califan007 The Constipated]

But in retrospect it's not a surprise since he and Casserly were failures too between 1990 and 1992.

Heh heh heh lol...

[Hitman21ST]

Heh heh heh lol...

Yeah, that Super Bowl run was a real failure...

[HailGreen28]

Yeah this thread is being hijacked but does anyone want to continue to talk about Donovan's wrist band?

There is no doubt that Gibbs changed the culture, even for a little while. It was fun being relative again. But at what price? I firmly believe that his shortsighted approach, the false believe that "we are really close" hamstrung the franchise after he left.

Gibbs left an aging and unproductive roster seriously lacking depth and young talent. A large factor in this is the number of high picks he traded away for nothing. Frankly I don't know how this can be argued. When an aging Chris Samuels went down they plugged in something called D'Anthony Batiste. Now that was on Vinny for putting together that roster but it sure would have helped had Gibbs spent one of those picks on a young OL a year or 2 earlier who would have been capable of stepping in. Look at any successful teams and when they lose a starter to injury or when they lose a step they plug in a guy who has been playing special teams for 2-3 years while they are developing and they never miss a beat. The Giants have 23 top DL that they rotate which pays huge dividends at the end of the game. And of course we all know that most all came from the draft. Had Gibbs kept those picks and even had average results with them this team would have had several young players contributing after he had left.

And Scuffy is correct, Gibbs had the same impatient, make a big splash mentality that has hampered this franchise before he came and certainly after he left. Instead of building the right way he traded a 3rd for TJ Duckett in what can only be described as a panic move after a Portis injury. The ARE move hampered them for years because they were kind of stuck with the guy, cutting him would have been a huge cap hit just as AA was after he was traded as the bonus accelerated that year. Now after Gibbs left Snyderato kept restructuring the deal to make room for other "stars" and that is on them for sure. But had Gibbs never signed him there would not have been a huge contract to restructure.

You're right in principle, except for the "big splash mentality". That was 100% on Danny and Vinny, not a Gibbs thing.

Gibbs wasn't going to be around long enough to do it the Giants way, or the Pats way. He did very well with what he had to work with. And in terms of taking a shot at getting to a Superbowl, better than most good coaches/GMs would have done in his place.

As far as "hamstringing" our future, lol. As we looked into the details you mentioned earlier, as I posted above, Gibbs actually did leave us in good shape on the things you mention. Cap and draft picks.

We just didn't have anybody in charge good enough to constantly reload after Gibbs left, as you have to doing it Gibbs 2.0 style. Who's fault is that? Danny and Vinny's fault.

[Califan007 The Constipated]

Yeah, that Super Bowl run was a real failure...

They sneaked into the Super Bowl...then fell ass-backwards into a dominating win.

All luck.

[HailGreen28]

This Gibbs 2 debate is a hijack and I apologize for joining in but I must say that Gibbs 2 was a failure because, if for no other reason, he did not change the culture or philosophy of the organization.

He retained Vinny, kept Danny involved and bought hook line and sinker into the philosophy of "loading up" to win now.

He failed to build a lasting organizational model that would serve this franchise after his departure. The fact that Vinny and Danny were large and in charge in January of 08 is direct result of Gibbs not changing a thing. So overall he was a failure.

Unless Danny was willing to sell the team, there's nothing Gibbs could have done to fix the failure you just identified. The organizational model of this team. For all we know, Danny wouldn't have let Joe back in the door, unless he agreed to the structure of the FO during Gibbs 2.0.

The "failure" you correctly bring up, is all on Dan Snyder's shoulders. It's his fault that our organization's culture was in many ways the same before, during, and after Gibbs 2.0. Because that's the way Danny set it up.

But in retrospect it's not a surprise since he and Casserly were failures too between 1990 and 1992. Their drafts were awful and all they did is add stopgap free agents via plan B to support the aging Beathard built roster. The team crumbled in 1993 not simply because one man left, but because there were no adequate young replacement on the salary bloated roster.

It's true Gibbs' strength isn't personnel. Failure is too strong a word. We won a freaking Superbowl in the 1991-1992 season. I think you underestimate how hard that is to do. So Gibbs and Casserly did some good work in between 1989 and 1992.

Yes our roster was aged by then, but Casserly not hitting picks to reload, and Petitbon switching to Rust's WCO had as much to do with our collapse as Gibbs' actual decisions.

What Gibbs 2 showed is that he still could lead men. That was, is and likely will always be his eternal strength.

He was no longer the innovator he was in the 80s and he never had the personnel chops.

The result was a sub .500 record but a couple of nice runs to sneak into the playoffs.

So he did better than Norv Turner, Steve Spurrier and Jim Zorn. Really? This is what passes for success now?

For about twenty years (1990-2009) He had the best personnel chops of any Redskin outside of Schottenhiemer and maybe Casserly (Who wasn't great, but he and Turner had finally put something together, right before Dumb and Dumber took over.)

I'm telling you, you're selling Joe Gibbs short. Especially on how tough it is to win in DC with "Dumb" the owner of the Skins.

[RWJ]

Bobby Beathard built the team that brought JG success along with JG's excellent coaching style. JG knew nothing about being a GM when he was here during JG II.

[HailGreen28]

They sneaked into the Super Bowl...then fell ass-backwards into a dominating win.

All luck.

LOL. I hear ya! We barely won that game! Gibbs was such a failure then!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0FfuS_XoedQ

[respectgibbs]

I better start seeing some more respect for Gibbs in here

[allannis]

All I can say is I would love to make the playoffs two out of the next four years.

[Hitman21ST]

I better start seeing some more respect for Gibbs in here

Respect, respectgibbs, respect.

[HailGreen28]

Don't forget a 2nd rounder and shutdown corner for Portis.

That's a really good example of Joe Gibbs making lemonade out of lemons. Especially since Bailey was leaving, no matter what. Thanks.

And even if we could have waved a magic wand and kept Bailey here and happy... who would you rather have had on this team: Portis, or Bell and Bailey? Both aren't bad options, but Bell only lasted 3 years with the Broncos and "Bell has a reputation for costly fumbles, including 5 fumbles in the 2006 season, all ending in turnovers. These fumbles led to the Oakland Raiders naming their fumble recovery drill "The Tatum Bell Drill". And like I said, Bailey was gone no matter what anyways.

It's kind of ironic, the Portis deal is mentioned here. Gibbs made a number of personnel decisions, good players like Portis (2004-2010), that have carried us a long time up to the present day. Again, because nobody in charge after Gibbs knew what they were doing. Until hopefully 2010-11.

That'd be a 1st, 2nd, three 3rds, three 4ths, . If 2 of those 7 draft picks, ie the 1st and 2nd rounder hit, and say we had a starting C, RT right now because of it, we could be much better prepared heading into next season.

Could you possibly have cherry picked and played the "what if" game more, to spin, anymore than you actually did?

Say half those lost picks worked out. We don't know who and what positions are actually picked. Especially without the benefit of hindsight. As far as I can tell, all those picks but one were spent anyways during Gibbs 2.0. And Gibbs overcame that with the good calls he made.

How about we stop blaming Gibbs, for the state of the team three and a half years after he left?

[elkabong82]

I think Gibbs left a good Redskins team and during his tenure he built a good core and found a way to get his team to the playoffs twice, but the trades left us without valubale picks we needed to build depth, and the regime that took over didn't build depth, just focused more on skill positions, despite changing offensive philosophies. Had the team brought in a disciple of the Coryell system they might have fared better and had longer to accrue depth. Vinny had the 2008 draft to add that depth and continue the core Gibbs built, but the O changed too much and the draft turned out to be poor overall. The best GMs get good value on contracts and build depth. We got some late round gems under Cerrato, none o them played on the line. Too much skill position, not enough trenches, not enough draft picks, IMO, defines why the Redskins failed post-Gibbs II and fell short during his tenure (such as '05 where injuries to the OL and poor depth killed a very good team in the playoffs).

[TD_washingtonredskins]

Objectively, some of the decisions that Gibbs signed off on or made weren't in the best long-term interests of the franchise. Having conceded that, he wasn't brought here to build for the future, but to attempt to make a five-year run. The players he brought in were geared toward that.

I refuse to pin more than a fraction of the blame on him, though I can agree that he didn't come in and attempt to set us up for the next decade.

[Annonymous Source]

Gibbs built a veteran heavy team that could compete for a playoff spot if things broke right. We had a stifling defense, and an offense that was progressing. Then as soon as he left it all fell apart. This tells me that Gibbs was doing a good job with the roster, and that Vinny could'nt handle the responsibility of shifting to a young roster (which we already knew from his mishandling of the 49ers). Gibbs did make mistakes on the personnel side of things, but the responsibility for the collapse has to be on the shoulders of Vinny.

[CrypticVillain]

I don't need to write a long essay to answer this question.

Gibbs did not fail. When he left, this team was in prime position to make so deep playoff runs. Danny and Vinny messed up this team when they failed to keep the continuity by hiring a new coach in house and going for a big splash, which ended up being Zorn.

Speaking of Zorn, it was Joe's team who started off 6-2. Then Vinny and Dan got a hold of it and he finished his last 24 games 6-18.

Gibbs II was a success. Everything after was some booty

[Enter Apotheosis]

When he left, this team was in prime position to make so deep playoff runs.

In a word, no. You'd have to be crazy to think this team was in prime position to make a deep run with the mounting problems we were having on both lines and at QB.

[Hitman21ST]

I don't need to write a long essay to answer this question.

Gibbs did not fail. When he left, this team was in prime position to make so deep playoff runs. Danny and Vinny messed up this team when they failed to keep the continuity by hiring a new coach in house and going for a big splash, which ended up being Zorn.

Speaking of Zorn, it was Joe's team who started off 6-2. Then Vinny and Dan got a hold of it and he finished his last 24 games 6-18.

Gibbs II was a success. Everything after was some booty

Portis and Campbell weren't going to give us deep playoff runs. They might have gotten us to the playoffs, but no way were they going to carry us to the NFCC or Super Bowl.

[CrypticVillain]

At the time this team was in good position. If Gibbs would have did that fifth year, we would have went deep in the playoffs.

[Hitman21ST]

At the time this team was in good position. If Gibbs would have did that fifth year, we would have went deep in the playoffs.

Taylor dead (RIP), a defense that was beginning to struggle, no way we go deep in the playoffs.

[Mahons21]

That's a really good example of Joe Gibbs making lemonade out of lemons. Especially since Bailey was leaving, no matter what. Thanks.

And even if we could have waved a magic wand and kept Bailey here and happy... who would you rather have had on this team: Portis, or Bell and Bailey? Both aren't bad options, but Bell only lasted 3 years with the Broncos and "Bell has a reputation for costly fumbles, including 5 fumbles in the 2006 season, all ending in turnovers. These fumbles led to the Oakland Raiders naming their fumble recovery drill "The Tatum Bell Drill". And like I said, Bailey was gone no matter what anyways.

Bailey isn't gone no matter what, he was upset at the team at the present time, their have been plenty of cases in football and all professional sports where any athlete and an organization get over whatever road bumps they may have had, and he was SIGNED.

Second off, you're assuming we would draft the same player as the Broncos, so it's an awful comparison.

It's kind of ironic, the Portis deal is mentioned here. Gibbs made a number of personnel decisions, good players like Portis (2004-2010), that have carried us a long time up to the present day. Again, because nobody in charge after Gibbs knew what they were doing. Until hopefully 2010-11.

I like Portis more than the next day but you're trying to give him way to much credit here to give Gibbs credit. Portis was only as good as our o-line, when they were healthy and playing well, he looked good when they weren't he didn't(aside from the ST playoff run). But for the most part it was the line, hence the reason Ladell Betts was on pace for 1800 yds the season he replaced an injured Portis.

It was hardly a smart move, we picked up a small back and tried to tell him to put on lbs change his game, and come join a power running scheme.

Don't even get me started on how trade raped we got in the deal too. A shutdown corner AND a 2nd round draft pick for an RB? Isn't RB the position that can be found in any round of the draft practically? Isn't it the position with that extremely short shelf-life so making a huge investment in an RB isn't always the best thing to do.

Could you possibly have cherry picked and played the "what if" game more, to spin, anymore than you actually did?

Say half those lost picks worked out. We don't know who and what positions are actually picked. Especially without the benefit of hindsight. As far as I can tell, all those picks but one were spent anyways during Gibbs 2.0. And Gibbs overcame that with the good calls he made.

Overcame them with good calls? TJ Duckett was an awful call, Jason Campbell was an awful call (aaron rodgers was picked one spot before him), Lloyd awful call, Archuleta awful call.

Second I didn't cherry-pick, C was a relative weakness hence the reason we went out and had to get Rabach in FA so it wouldn't be that surprising to see a team that needed a C actually draft one. As was RT, Jansen had had multiple injuries and possibly mutliple season ending injures, so why would it be odd to draft a RT?

Lastly, I said only 2 of the 7 picks hit, that's not even 50% that you suggest, and no one past the 2nd round made the team in my hypothetical situation.

How about we stop blaming Gibbs, for the state of the team three and a half years after he left?

He deserves some of the blame for the talentless squad we had last year, there's no way around it. Team building takes time, you're not going to see the affects right away, you're going to see them 2 or 3 years down the road, like we are and have been.

[TD_washingtonredskins]

Portis and Campbell weren't going to give us deep playoff runs. They might have gotten us to the playoffs, but no way were they going to carry us to the NFCC or Super Bowl.

I'd agree with that. Even the two successful years under Gibbs (2005 and 2007) our main contributors were running on fumes in January.

[CrypticVillain]

I already talked about the fast start that we had in 2008. You mean to tell me that Gibbs wouldn't have been able to keep the ball rolling in a way that Zorn couldn't.

Hindsight is 20/20 now, but I want you all to remember that people were saying that Campbell was an MVP candidate in the beginning of that season. Then teams decided that Zorn wouldn't even been able to protect his own mother in the pocket so they started attacking the line like crazy.

Our defense did finish in the top 10 (maybe top 5) that year, the offense just couldn't get their act right.

With Gibbs and Gregg Williams we would have went deep. For goodness sake, the Cardinals was in the Super Bowl that year.

[Mahons21]

Started attacking the line or the line that was 30+ years old, with multiple players already having endured season ending injuries in the past, health/age actually caught up with them... Wouldn't be a problem if he'd retained a few draft picks and actually given depth some value.

[Hitman21ST]

I already talked about the fast start that we had in 2008. You mean to tell me that Gibbs wouldn't have been able to keep the ball rolling in a way that Zorn couldn't.

Hindsight is 20/20 now, but I want you all to remember that people were saying that Campbell was an MVP candidate in the beginning of that season. Then teams decided that Zorn wouldn't even been able to protect his own mother in the pocket so they started attacking the line like crazy.

Our defense did finish in the top 10 (maybe top 5) that year, the offense just couldn't get their act right.

With Gibbs and Gregg Williams we would have went deep. For goodness sake, the Cardinals was in the Super Bowl that year.

The fast start under Zorn was because no one had any "tape" on Zorn and how he called plays, gameplanned, etc. Once we started the second half of the season, everyone knew what he would do.